iPad Owns 91% of Tablet Web Traffic; Nook Passes Kindle Fire

Ad network firm Chitika released a new report this week with two interesting tidbits: the first is that the iPad is responsible for more than 91 percent of media tablet Web traffic, even though Apple has only about 70 percent of the tablet market. The second is that Barnes & Noble’s Android-based Nook tablet has passed last year’s budget darling, Amazon’s Kindle Fire.

The company’s data was pulled from “hundreds of millions of impressions” from its own mobile advertising network, the Chitika Ad network from June 4th, 2012 to June 10th 10th, 2012. The company then broke down the traffic coming from tablets—Apple’s iPad was responsible for so much of the traffic, it had to be presented as what every other device did compared to 100 iPad impressions, as shown in the graph below.

(Click for a slightly larger and more legible version)

“We found that 91.07% of tablet web traffic comes from iPad devices,” Chitika said in its report. “While the iPad still accounts for a great majority of tablet web traffic, it has fallen about 3.5% from the 94.64% figure we reported in early May.”

The company said the rise in non-iPad alternatives was responsible for the slight decline in iPad’s share of traffic on the company’s network, but we were curious about why Apple has such a disproportionate share of that traffic in the first place.

“This data suggests a number of potential trends and behavioral mechanics of tablet users, including [people who buy competing products, but stop using them, or simply find that the Internet experience is not very good and stop using them to surf the Web],” the company told The Mac Observer.

A company spokesperson added that, “Another potential insight that can be drawn from this data is that people who buy iPad’s may be more likely as a whole to be more active on the Web, hence the higher share of usage. In contrast, the Kindle Fire and Nook are marketed as e books and users may be more likely to be spend more time reading and less on the Web.”

Back to the Future

Looking forward, Chitika believes that Apple’s share of Web traffic will decline to be more in line with the iPad’s share of the tablet market. When TMO asked the basis for this belief, Chitika said that it believes that other devices will catch up, “in terms of functionality, usability, and accessibility (in terms of both hardware and software).”

Chitika is in this camp, and the company told TMO that, “A primary example of this would be the smartphone market and the evolution it has undergone over the last few years. The Apple iPhone started out as a highly differentiated product yet over time its competitors such as Motorola and Samsung using the Android OS have begun to eat away at their market share.”

“Even though [Apple] still remain dominant, the disparity is not the same as it used to be, and we believe the tablet market will follow a similar trend,” the company added.

Barnes & Noble vs. Kindle Fire

As for Barnes & Noble, Chitika said that Amazon’s Kindle Fire had 0.71 percent of Web traffic, well behind distant number two, Samsung, who was rip-roaring away at 1.94 percent of Web traffic. Kindle Fire hasn’t lost any share, but Barnes & Noble’s Nook share increased to 0.85 percent of tablet Web traffic, enough for…sixth place.

”...the company told TMO that, ?A primary example of this would be the smartphone market and the evolution it has undergone over the last few years. The Apple iPhone started out as a highly differentiated product yet over time its competitors such as Motorola and Samsung using the Android OS have begun to eat away at their market share.?
?Even though [Apple] still remain dominant, the disparity is not the same as it used to be, and we believe the tablet market will follow a similar trend,? the company added.”

OK, maybe so, but isn’t there another just as good example to analogize from; the mp3 player market and the evolution/fate of all competitors after the iPod came along? So, how much competition does the iPod have now, after all this time in which the devastated previously-dominant competition has had to rally back?

Doesn’t the iPad really share more ergonomic & life-functional similarities with the iPod than the smartphones?

“Kindle Fire at 0.71% is just flipping hilarious too!!? And someone here thought that thing was going to take off too.”

Yes, I recall someone here repeatedly stressing that Apple had missed the boat; had allowed itself to miss a major opportunity as wide as a barn door which the 7”-format Kindles had driven through (like a tank?) last fall and left Apple way behind in the dust.

I still agree that the 7” iPad being speculated about would be a great success, but Apple certainly did NOT miss any opportunity to take the lead of that market. The lead of that market is obviously still waiting for some tablet to come along and seize it - and I’m sure Apple will, if & when Apple decides to enter that market. Apple obviously did not miss any opportunity back then, before the Kindle Fire had burned itself into its current dying ember.

Also, the size of the iPad and it’s screen, it’s user interface, multitude of apps that access the web….all contribute to making it a web access tool for the ages….IMO the web access percentages will always clobber the other ones because of the tightly integrated HW and SW design.

Once the companies that roll out Flash-only web pages suddenly realize that such large percentages of web traffic are done on a major portion of nearly 1/2 billion iOS devices, their page transitions to non-Flash solutions will get funded. The ones that stay Flash only will get left behind. Nearly every time I post feedback to sites that won’t work without Flash, the responses are mostly..we’re working on it, or it’s only an issue of money right now and we’re searching for the money. The responses I generally get tell me that in the not too distant future, most all pages worth looking at will be fully functional on iOS devices. When I run across one that requires Flash, my immediate response is usually, well I didn’t really need to be there anyway, and don’t ever go back. If it is something worth looking at I post a nice comment about them missing out on 350 million potential customers on iOS devices.

The conversion of the pages to include html5 or other non-Flash solutions for audio and video players will increase the total web traffic percentages relative to the others and help offset the market share effects.

I’d love to know what the total percentage of web traffic is for all iOS devices combined for all web traffic (all mobile plus non-mobile devices).

Kindle Fire at 0.71% is just flipping hilarious too!!? And someone here thought that thing was going to take off too.

Well, to me the Kindle Fire would seem to be a reasonable choice for someone who wants a reader and nothing else; for someone who wants to read books, use the internet, play games, do some useful things as well, it is not a good choice. So it would be kind of obvious that Kindle Fire users would use the internet less than iPad users.

jbelkin6:21 PM EDT, Jun. 17th, 2012Guest

Ipads “70% market share” is based on presumed shipped numbers from adding up all Android/Fire/Nook manufacturers. The fact that the ipad has 91% share of internet usage means that 20% of all shipped android tablets are sitting in back rooms and in the channel. The real market share of the tablet is plain to see - 91% - the ipad market is the same as the ipod market. unlike a free phone, when people have to pay real money, they choose Apple.

Well, to me the Kindle Fire would seem to be a reasonable choice for someone who wants a reader and nothing else; for someone who wants to read books, use the internet, play games, do some useful things as well, it is not a good choice. So it would be kind of obvious that Kindle Fire users would use the internet less than iPad users.

gnasher729, I entirely agree. My post was somewhat directed at those who, when FIre first came out, were stating how the Amazon was going to “kill the iPad” with this 7” powerhouse. We had some pretty nasty debating going on back in March on this topic. And yet those commenters (trolls, really) are hiding.

I have never had an issue with the Fire or the Nook tablets, just with those who get nasty with their predictions of how these tablets were going to take over the world.

Looking forward, Chitika believes that Apple?s share of Web traffic will decline to be more in line with the iPad?s share of the tablet market. When TMO asked the basis for this belief, Chitika said that it believes that other devices will catch up, ?in terms of functionality, usability, and accessibility (in terms of both hardware and software)

Bryan:

I realise that this has been up for awhile and the thread is dead, but limited internet access and Monsoon-soaked terrain have kept me away.

This quote bespeaks an unwillingness, or worse, an inability, to use a modern reference frame as an analysis framework. In science, that would be a no-no, and bring negative peer criticism. Having made a modern empirical observation, the authors appear to lurch backwards into the deep past (in relative tech years, which are not many) in search a rationale from which to draw their conclusions.

True, in the 1980’s it was all about feature-sets (a mouse, a GUI, a colour monitor). In the 1990’s it was about the specs (clock speeds, RAM, storage). What both of those eras had in common was the absence of a broader operating context beyond the box - apart from compatibility with colleagues. The box contained your world and was its own ecosystem in splendid isolation. There wasn’t even an internet. The appropriate framework back then was the feature set and specs of the device. Other than compatibility, nothing else mattered. The richer the feature set, the better the specs, the more likely people would buy - within limits (no need to digress into the ‘race to the bottom’, which you’ve described only too well). Computer users engaged in collective parallel play.

In the second decade of the 21st Century, that analysis framework no longer applies, except to a limited degree. The user experience is now about connectivity, interaction, ease of access to what you need when you need it, and in the easiest and simplest way. It’s about an ecosystem that brings all your needs together. Feature sets have meaning only in the context of that ecosystem, and spec sheets are second tier statistics.

Where analysts have thus far failed to understand Apple and its products, particularly the iPad, and make accurate predictions, has too often been here, in an inability to understand the paradigm shift of the present day, and therefore what matters.

Predicting that other ‘devices’ will catch up based on functionality and the like is not even wishful thinking, it’s the wrong reference frame. They should be looking at ecosystem development and whether these devices can play a similar, if not superior, role to the iPad within those systems.